
OF 






HON. WILKINSON CALL, 


OUT JOLORUDaV, 


IN THE 


SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 


4s 


, V 


FEBRFAEY 23, 1886. 






WASHINGTON. 

1886 . 






































The Blair Educational Bill in Aid of Common Schools and 
Industrial Education. 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON. WILKINSON CALL. 


The Senate having under consideration the bill (S. 194) to aid in the establish- 
ment and temporary support of common schools — 

Mr. CALL said: 

Mr. President: There is nothing that affords a # greater contrast 
than the plain, simple fact when contrasted with declarations of theory 
and opinion. There have been grave questions made in regard to this 
bill, and an examination of the merits of the people of the respect- 
ive States and sections has been largely entered upon. It has been 
said that the illiteracy in some portions of the country is due to the 
fault of the people there; that there is abundant ability, taxable sources 
of revenue to sustain a proper system of public instruction throughout 
the States where it prevails. 

Suppose we leave that subject for one moment and consider that the 
United States collected from the people of the Southern States, where 
the greatest need for aid to education exists, between sixty and seventy 
million dollars without authority of law and paid it into the Treasury 
of the United States, and that it still remains there, the property ofthe 
people from whom it was taken. What is the result and what the ob- 
ligation of that fact? What matters it what superiority there may or 
may not be in different portions of this country, if that fact be true, 
and if there is illiteracy and there is a need of education, what is the 
constitutional objection, or the moral objection, or the political objec- 
tion to the payment of that money, unlawfully in the Treasury of the 
United ’States and taken from the people of these Southern States? 
But we have grave constitutional arguments here to show that while 
that money did get into the Treasury by the operations of the Govern- 
ment, that while it got there by the exercise of the constitutional pow- 
ers of the Government, although unlawfully exerted, yet there is no 
constitutional power to pay it out, even for purposes which concern the 
people of all the States. 

I think that fact is a sufficient answer to the Senator from Kansas 
and to his objections to this bill, that here is a large sum of money taken 
from the people of the States where illiteracy most prevails, at a time 
when their industries were disordered, when there was no power to re- 
suscitate all the various sources from which industry derives its support, 
while there was no power to direct efficiently the labor of the country, 
and still held by the national Treasury. 


4 


But it is not necessary to enter into a discussion of the questions 
raised by the Senator from Kansas. It is idle to deny the fact that a 
great war had destroyed the relations of society, the relations of in- 
dustry; that it had destroyed the values of property, and that those 
people have not yet recovered from that war. Be the fact what it may 
in regard to the superior economies of the people of Kansas or any other 
State it does not touch the question that the result of the great civil 
war left the Southern people and the Southern States with disordered 
industry, with landed property which had no convertible value in 
money, and that its effects still remain; and that no people, either in 
Kansas or anywhere else in the world, have ever striven with more 
economy, with more industry, nor appropriated their means with more 
liberality to the great burden of education that came upon them from 
these circumstances. 

The figures which the Senator from New Hampshire has furnished 
and has had printed in the Record abundantly evidence that fact; 
they abundantly establish the present needs of the country, the fact 
that there is an increasing illiteracy throughout the country, the fact 
that there is a necessity for a greater application of money than can be 
obtained from the taxable resources of the people of these States, and 
it is with that question and its consequences that we are called upon 
to-day to deal. 

How do we approach that question ? We find the gravest constitu- 
tional objections urged against this bill. Senators can find in this 
simple appropriation of money not so great as the sum belonging to 
them in the Treasury to be accepted or rejected by the States at their 
will, to be applied through their own State officers, and with the re- 
quirement only of a condition applicable to all appropriations and 
grants of public money, that it shall be applied to the purpose for which 
it is intended. They find in this simple fact a grave constitutional ob- 
jection, that it interferes with the autonomy of the States, that it is de- 
structive of their sovereign power of legislation, that it invades the bar- 
rier interposed by the Constitution between State and Federal power, 
that although money was appropriated to purchase Louisiana and a 
part of Texas, although the people were taxed to buy Alaska, and 
although neither of these acts is pretended to be within the specific 
grants of power, for which alone under the argument of the objectors 
to this bill, money can be appropriated, yet no power can be found 
to apply the money realized from taxes in aid of education even with 
the consent of the States where it is to be expended. 

Nothing, I think, will more clearly establish how futile these ideas 
are than the fact that it has been regarded as a proper subject of State 
and Federal power that a State might cede its territory to the United 
States. The State of Texas ceded to the United States for a consider- 
ation paid in money enough empire to make two or three States. The 
power was found in the Constitution for that, and where was it found ? 
Can it be said that the right of a State and the Federal Government to 
make a compact by which the territory of the State is surrendered to 
be held at the discretion of the National Government is less dangerous 
to State autonomy than the power to accept a gift? There is no dis- 
cretion or limitation either upon the State or upon the Government- of 
the United States. If they may cede their territory by a compact and 
it be accepted, they may extinguish the State government entirely. If 


5 


there is a power for a part there is a power for the whole, and it will 
not do to construe the Constitution upon any such narrow and imprac- 
ticable ideas as these. 

Time and again the power of a State and the Federal Government to 
make a compact by which the State ceded her territory to the United 
States has been recognized and affirmed, and it creates no apprehension 
and no alarm; bgt manifestly I reiterate such a power may be so used 
as to be absolutely destructive of the theory of an indestructible State. 

How, then, shall we construe the Constitution? Simply by the prop- 
osition that it contains two great principles, the one of national govern- 
ment and national authority and the other of State authority, and thiut 
neither can as a matter of power interfere with the other. This con- 
struction of the Constitution has prevailed throughout the whole history 
of this Government. None other is practicable. 

We find as the result of this that the public domain of the United States, 
estimated to be 1,849,000,000 acres, cost for the purchase $322, 049, 000, 
paid by the Government of the United States out of the taxable reve- 
nues of the country, paid by taxes imposed upon the people of the 
United States under the powers of the Constitution. 

COST PER ACRE OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN — PURCHASE AND CESSIONS. 

The entire public domain contained (estimated) cessions, 259,171,787 acres; 
purchases, 1,593,139,200 acres ; total, 1,852,310,987 acres; cost, $88,157,389.98, which 
is 4f cents per acre. 

Purchases— cost, $81,957,389.98 ; contained 1,593,139,200 acres; cost 5 ^ cents per 
acre. 

Louisiana purchase — cost, $27,267,621.98; contained 756,961,280 acres; cost 3f 
cents per acre. 

East and West Florida, from Spain — cost, $6,489,768; contained 37,931,520 acres; 
cost 17 4 $ cents per acre. 

Mexico, Guadalupe Hidalgo — cost, $15,000,000; contained 334, 443, 520 acres; cost 
41 cents per acre. 

Texas purchase, 1850 — cost $16,000,000 ; contained 65,130,880 acres; cost 24 T ^ 
cents per acre. 

Mexico, Gadsden purchase, 1853— cost $10,000,000; contained 29,142,400 acres; 
cost 34 x 3 <y cents per acre. 

Alaska from Russia, 1867 — cost, $7,200,000; contained 369,529,600 acres; cost 
1£§ cents per acre. 

State cessions, from Georgia — cost, $6,200,000 ; contained 56,689,920 acres ; cost 
101$ cents per acre. 

The United States has disposed of (estimated) 547,754,483.88 acres of public do- 
main, exclusive of Tennessee, and received therefor, net, $200,702,849.11, or 
nearly 36^ ff cents per acre. 

The public domain contains (estimated) 1,852,310,987 acres, and cost for pur- 
chase, Indians, survey, and disposition, $322,049,595.96, or about 17j cents per 
acre. 

We find that vast portions of this money have passed by donation ac- 
cepted by the. States to all of the States, and the distinction that can 
be drawn between the injury to the States in accepting the proceeds of 
the sales of the public lands and the public lands themselves and the 
injury that will result from accepting the money derived directly by 
taxes manifestly has no foundation either in reason or in the experience 
of the country. I think that is a satisfactory reply. Three hundred 
. and more million dollars of the taxes on the people of this country have 
been expended in the purchase of the public domain, and it has been 
appropriated in this form for educational purposes in every State in the 
Union, the State of Kansas receiving nearly 3,000,000 acres of this 
public land, worth at least $10 per acre, or about $28,000,000 of this 


6 


public money, and all of the States receiving their 5 per cent., as they 
are to-day receiving it, of the proceeds of the sales of public lands. The 
State of Kansas receiving in money from this source $346,318.24. 

Statement of the grants to States and reservations to Territories for school 

purposes. • 


States and Territories. 

Total area. 

Dates of grants. 

. Section 16. 

Acres. 


Ohio 

704, 488 

March' 3, 1803. 

Indiana 

650,317 
985, 066 

April 19, 1816. 

April 18, 1818. 

Illinois 

Missouri 

1, 199, 139 

March 6, 1820. 

Alabama 

902, 774 

March 2, 1819. 

Mississippi 

837, 584 

March 3, 1803: May 19, 
1852; March 3, 1857. 

Louisiana 

786, 044 

April 21, 1806; February 



15, 1843. 

Michigan 

1, 067, 397 

June 23, 1836. 

Arkansas 

886, 460 

Do. 

Florida 

908,503 

March 3, 1845. 

Iowa 

905, 144 

Do. 

Wisconsin 

958, 649 

August 6, 1846. 

Sections 16 and 36. 



California 

6,719,324 

Act March 3, 1853. 

Minnesota 

2, 969, 990 

February 26, 1857. 

Oregon 

3, 329, 706 

February 14, 1859. 

Kansas 

2.801,306 

January 29, 1861. 

Nevada 

3, 985. 428 

March 21, 1864. 

Nebraska 

2, 702, 044 

April 19, 1864. 

Colorado 

3, 715, 555 

March 3, 1875. 

Washington Territory 

2, 488, 675 

March 2, 1853. 

New Mexico Territory 

4, 309, 368 

September 9, 1850; July 
22, 1854. 

Utah Territory 

3, 003, 613 

September 9, 1850. 

Dakota Territory 

5, 366, 451 

March 2, 1861. 

Montana Territory 

5, 112, 035 

February 28, 1861. 

Arizona Territory 

4, 050, 347 

May 26, 1864. 

Idaho Territory 

3, 068, 23 L 

March 3, 1863. 

Wyoming Territory 

3, 480, 281 

July 25, 1868. 

Total 

67, 893, 919 



No grants to Indian and Alaska Territories. 

Lands in sixteenth and thirty-sixth sections in Territories not granted, but 
reserved. 

Lands in place and indemnity for deficiencies in sections and townships 
under acts of May 20,1826, aud February 26,1859, included in above statement. 

The following statement shows the number of acres granted to the 
States and reserved iu the Territories of Washington, New Mexico, and 
Utah, for university purposes, by acts of Congress, the dates of which 
are given in proper column: 


7 


Grants and reservations for universities. 


States and Territories. 

Total area. 

Under what acts. 

Ohio 

Acres. 
69, 120 

April 21, 1792 ; March 3, 1803. 

Indiana 

46, 080 

April 19, 1816; March 26, 1804. 

Illinois 

46,080 

March 26, 1804 ; April 18, 1818. 

Missouri 

46,080 

February 17, 1818; March 6, 1820. 

Alabama 

46,080 

April 20,1818; March 2,1819. 

Mississippi 

46, 080 

March 3, 1803 ; February 20,1819. 

Louisiana 

46, 080 

April 21,1806; March 3, 1811; 

Michigan 

46, 080 

March 3, 1827. 

June 23, 1836. 

Arkansas 

46, 080 

Do. 

Florida 

92, 160 

March 3, 1845. 

Iowa 

46,080 

Do. 

Wisconsin 

92,160 

August6,1846; December 15,1854. 

California 

46,080 

March 3, 1853. 

Minnesota 

82, 640 

March 2, 1861 ; February 26, 1857; 

Oregon 

46, 080 

July 8, 1870. 

February 14, 1859; March 2, 1861, 

Kansas 

46, 080 

January 29, 1861. 

Nevada 

46, 080 

July 4, 1866. 

Nebraska 

46, 080 

April 19, 1864. 

Colorado 

46,080 

March 3, 1875. 

Washington Territory 

46, 080 

July 17,1854; March 14, 1864. 

New Mexico Territory 

46, 080 

July 22, 1854. 

Utah Territory 

46, 080 

February 21, 1855. 

Total 

1,165,520 



Lands in the Territories not granted, but reserved. 


TWO, THREE, AND FIVE PER CENT. FUNDS. 


Statement of the amounts which have accrued to the following-named States 
on account of the 2 , 3 , and 5 per cent, upon the net proceeds of the sales 
of public lands to June “SO, 1882 , inclusive. 


States. 

2 per cent. 

3 per cent. 

5 per cent. 

Aggregate. 

Alabama 

$405,178 81 

$607,678 22 


$1,012,857 03 

232.317 03 
9,589 73 

33,162 27 
626,075 16 
$712,744 82 
618,277 50 

346. 318 24 
315, 676 36 
484, 645 04 
148,854 92 
996, 906 50 
551, 423 83 
137, 685 79 

8, 319 84 
596,634 10 
34,911 09 
466, 670 51 

Arkansas 

$232,317 03 
9, 589 73 
33, 162 27 
626,075 16 

Colorado 



Florida 



Iowa ?... 



Illinois 


$712,744 82 
618, 277 50 

Indiana 



K a,n sa s 


$346,318 24 
315, 676 36 
484, 645 04 
148,854 92 

Louisiana 



Michigan 



Minnesota 



Mississippi 

Missouri T 

$395, 528 64 
15, 587 78 

601,377 86 
535, 836 05 

Nebraska 

137, 685 79 
8,319 84 

Nevada 



Ohio 


596,634 10 

Oregon 


34,911 09 
466, 670 51 

Wisconsin 



Total 



816,295 23 

3,672,548 55 

2,844,225 98 

7,333,069 76 


/ 


8 


Why shall we argue upon these questions and find constitutional dif- 
ficulties, first toward pay ing back the money unlawfully collected from 
the people of the Southern States, and now in the Treasury, for an ob- 
ject common to all for a benefit that will result to every State and to 
all the people of the United States. Second, why shall we find objec- 
tions to giving the money in aid of education when we find that the 
same money invested in the $300, 000, 000 of public land has been paid 
out to an extent twice as great as the whole amount provided to be paid 
in the bill ? 

Sir, this bill is but a small proportion of the amount that has been 
appropriated continuously and without objection with the consent of 
every State and of the people by the United States to the cause of edu- 
cation. It seems strange to me, with this continuous experience on the 
part of the Government, renewed Congress after Congress, this appro- 
priation of a sum of money much larger in the aggregate than that now 
proposed to be expended, that we should still find these urgent consti- 
tutional objections to this act so common in the history of the Govern- 
ment and attempt to justify it by a distinction between taxes now to 
be levied and taxes levied in the past and then invested in public lands 
and then applied to the purposes of education. 

We still apply the 5 per cent, of the proceeds of the sales of the pub- 
lic lands paid in the Treasury every year to this benefit, accepted by 
the States and received by them. If it is unconstitutional to appro- 
priate money out of the Treasury to the cause of education because it 
is not provided for in the Constitution, there is not one of the appro- 
priations of the 5 per cent, of the proceeds of the sales of the public 
lands that is not equally within the constitutional inhibition. 

But I do not found my support of the bill upon any question of res- 
titution to the people of the Southern States, or of justice or injustice 
to this or that section of the Union — not because of the war or the results 
of the war. To-day, standing as a Senator here, I propose to legislate 
for the present and the future. The past is irrevocable. To my mind 
we stand to-day in a new generation and with new surroundings. We 
have a new world and new economies, and we have but two great guid- 
ing stars and principles to control us in the exercise of the powers con- 
ferred upon us, and that is the preservation of the National Government 
and the preservation of the States in their respective spheres of action. 

I recognize the power to aid States and the power of the States to aid 
the National Government as within the sphere of constitutional power, 
and I ask the Senators who have made their arguments here denying 
it, I ask those who have quoted from Judge Cooley in regard to the 
power of the Federal and State Governments, and from Judge Marshall, 
to the effect that the General Government can not tax for an object of 
State power and the State government can not tax for an object of Fed- 
eral power, how is it that they pay year after year the loans made by 
the different States in aid of the General Government during the late 
civil war and the money expended by the States for the suppression of 
Indian hostilities? 

These are each powers not enumerated in the specific grants. The 
States are not charged with the common defense. The Federal Gov- 
ernment is charged with the power and duty of defending each State 
from war and invasion. How, then, can you recognize its power to tax 
its people for this Federal duty, and appropriate money to pay them for 


9 


exercising an unconstitutional and prohibited power ? Consent, you 
say, can not give power or jurisdiction. 

How is it, if it be unconstitutional for the National Government to 
aid the States by an appropriation of money, that from the very be- 
ginning of the history of this Government the States have been paid by 
the National Government the money that they had used and expended 
and loaned in the suppression of Indian hostilities and later in the civil 
war in the equipment of troops and the general expenditures for the 
maintenance of the war? 

There is no ground of argument or of reason in the proposition that 
there is anything in the Federal Constitution that prohibits a State or 
withholds power from us to aid the States iu a lawful and proper way 
with their consent. The Constitution has prohibited any invasion of 
their sovereignty, and assuredly it would not be lawful for the General 
Government to exercise any power which it possessed to the destruction 
of the proper sovereignty of the States, nor would it be on the part of 
the States to exercise any authority to the destruction of any of the 
powers intrusted to the National Government. That is the only dis- 
tinction which has guided the Government in the exercise of its powers, 
and the only reasonable one which can guide it. 

But I said that we stood now with new surroundings, and what are 
those? We have no census and no statistical tables which can tell us 
the number of unemployed people in the United States. We have no 
means of knowing what the extent of want, what the extent of poverty, 
what the extent of suffering in this country is; but we know that North 
and South there is a want of employment for the people of the country ; 
that agriculture alone is open to great masses of people. We find in the 
statistical reports even of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where 
labor is more equally divided and distributed, where education and in- 
dustrial education is more general than any where else, that by the sta- 
tistics of Massachusetts, even there, there is a necessity for industrial 
education; that there is a necessity for education among some classes 
of the people greater than their system provides. Even there less than 
50 per cent, of their people are employed; the remainder have no em- 
ployment and are not producers. 

We are confronted with the proposition that with the labor-saving 
machinery that has been invented, that with the great corporations 
and the great increase of corporate power everywhere in the country, 
there is a necessity for something that will distribute labor, for some- 
thing that will diversify labor, for something that will enable the whole 
people of the country to relieve themselves from their present condition 
of poverty and of want. We find that we are in an age when the com- 
munications of the country are so rapid and quick, when by the tele- 
graph the speed of lightning is given to thought and aU nations and 
peoples are placed in direct and immediate communicatron, the power 
of combination is associating the laboring people of the world every- 
where until they can dictate to the communities and to the sources of 
employment the terms of their employment. 

I regard it as a favorable and an auspicious feature in the economy 
of this time, but it must be accompanied with education. It is a fear- 
ful power which takes the attribute that has hitherto belonged to gov- 
ernment and gives it to an associated body of men federated throughout 
the world the power of directing the actions of large bodies of people. 


10 


It is necessary, in my opinion, for the comfort of the laboring- people, 
for their protection against want and suffering; but it must be accompa- 
nied with education, it must be accompanied with the power to diver- 
sify employment, it must be accompanied with that kind of education 
which will enable every man to be an independent factor and laborer 
in the community; and when the law of a relentless competition shall 
have made one employment unprofitable, when he or she may not be 
able to obtain employment there, they must be so educated that they 
can turn their attention to some other employment fitted for them and 
labor in that. 

Therefore, I recognize in the present condition of things a necessity 
for aid from the General Government wherever a State may be found 
that is not able to afford education to her people, and I do not regard 
it with any apprehension that it shall be upon such terms not interfer- 
ing with the internal autonomy of the State, not interfering with her 
power to control education, but that it shall be upon such reasonable 
terms to be accepted by the State as will require that education shall 
be provided with the means furnished for the purpose by the Govern- 
ment of the United States. 

It has been urged that this is a local interest, that this is a necessity 
for that community and for none other. I do not take such a view of 
the case. I consider that if there be any State within this Union now 
or hereafter that from any cause shall be so crippled in its resources that 
it can not perform for her people the functions which were retained and 
reserved in her constitution, to aid that State with a gift of the public 
money would be in the interest and for the benefit of every other State 
of the United States and for every other people in the United States. 

I believe it is just as legitimate and as clearly wise as it was for the 
States of the Union in the late war to loan their money to equip troops 
to expend their taxes in the maintenance of the Union, or as it was for 
the States to have organized troops and suppressed the Indian hostili- 
ties, and then to ask the Government of the United States that they 
should be reimbursed for that money. I can see no difference between 
the two propositions, except that here it is proposed to give this money 
and it finds its justification in fact so far as the Southern States are con- 
cerned in the fact that the Government holds $77, 000, 000 of their money, 
though I do not need that. I am prepared to vote as a Senator money 
to aid them wherever it is necessary to maintain the existence of a State 
government, wherever her people are without the means to maintain 
that autonomy, and if it be necessary to loan money with her consent, 
to give money to rehabilitate that State and that people, I shall find 
no constitutional objections toward doing it. 

But we are told that there must be self-reliance in the people, and 
that it is the^vant of self-reliance in these great communities of South- 
ern States that has caused this lack of education. The contrast be- 
tween the State of Kansas and other Western States and the Southern 
States has no foundation in reason. They were the centers of a large 
and prosperous emigration. They were the centers to which a popula- 
tion was crowding, with land suitable for the production of cereals 
ready at once to be converted into profitable agriculture; while the 
agriculture of the Southern States, with a peculiar population, was one 
that drove away this vast tide of emigration. 

Pour into the Southern States the same emigration and the same peo- 


11 

pie and you will find that there is no peculiarity in the soil there, or 
in the climate there, or in the surroundings there which will prevent 
the same people upon the soil of the Southern States, under the same 
circumstances, from producing the same results. But put a few of them 
there in the midst of a different population, accustomed to other proc- 
esses of labor, themselves to be educated not only in the habits of free 
labor and free industry, but in the economies that are necessary, and 
put them in the midst of a population that have to be taught every- 
thing, and you will find as great a difference with the people of Kansas 
situated as the Southern people are as you will find between them there 
at this time and those in the free States. 

But how is this donation of money going to affect the self-reliance of 
the people? I venture to affirm that the Southern people have been 
taxed to the utmost limits of possible payment. The values there are 
not convertible values. The railroads built there are built with foreign 
capital, under conditions of exemption from taxation for many years. 
In a great many if not in all cases every inducement has been held out 
to capital. The land is not a convertible asset. It is taxed far beyond 
its convertible value, for that is almost absolutely nothing. The whole 
amount of taxation is paid out of the labor of the people. It is not 
paid out of value which can be converted ; it is paid out of the annual 
agricultural labor of the country, which is the sole resource of the 
people. 

If this donation of money shall destroy the self-reliance of the peo- 
ple, how has it been that those 3,000,000 acres nearly of public land do- 
nated to the people of Kansas and this 5 per cent, upon the proceeds of 
the sales of the public lands, equal in value to thirty millions of dollars 
in the State of Kansas, has not destroyed their self-reliance? I hold 
in my hand the table of the distribution of the proceeds of the sales of 
the public lands or the surplus money in the Treasury which has been 
the foundation of the great systems of education in many of the West- 
ern and Northern States. 

Why has not that destroyed the self-reliance of the people? Mr. 
President, there is no foundation for that proposition. Unquestionably, 
to sustain these people entirely from the national Treasury would be 
unwise and absurd, but a moderate appropriation to be invested prop- 
erly in the encouragement of education, in the establishment of schools 
everywhere, in maintaining teachers for a limited time, could have no 
permanent effect upon the self-reliance of the people. 

There are tasks too great to be accomplished by an impoverished peo- 
ple, and this danger is pressing upon us. A hundred million people will 
soon be here. They will need employment and they will need educa- 
tion of the head and the hand. They will need that which every des- 
potic government has already undertaken because pf the necessity to 
provide employment for the people. Sir, this is a necessity which will 
admit of no denial and no delay. Ignorance, the lack of employment, 
the want of capacity to earn a living will crush a stronger government 
than any that has ever existed in the world. The associations of labor 
which are telling everywhere the story of their wrongs and sufferings, 
the want of employment, the lack of compensation, the stern oppression 
which they feel, evidences, I think, to every enlightened statesman that 
there must be some other, some wider, some more efficient education 
than that now existing; and I can see no impropriety in the National 


12 


Government, which has expended the proceeds of the public lands to an 
extent twice or three times greater than the appropriation asked for 
here — I can see no objection to Government aid in the midst of this 
necessity, with the increasing illiteracy in the South unfitting the people 
for the duties of citizenship or for the employments of life except the 
single one of an imperfect agriculture, the single one of an agriculture 
notin accordance with the spirit of the age, with the intelligence of the 
age confined to one or two staples alone, and with the utter impossi- 
bility within this generation of that ignorance being relieved. 

Sir, I am in favor of appropriating money to the full extent of $60,- 
000,000 or $70,000,000 improperly taken from the Southern States, and 
now held in the Treasury for this purpose of general education, of in- 
dustrial education, and I find no difficulty whatever in any of the pro- 
visions of the Constitution in giving to it my support. 



4 








/ 




/ 




\ 


* 





LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0 019 851 849 9 


